Billy Elliot the Forum

kport wrote:Do American audiences understand what 'trackies' are?

Probably not, which is another reason that the bit with the waistband needs to be more obvious.

Star Trek fans.

LiamM wrote:Star Trek fans.

Very good.

On a related note, I wish they'd change the first part of Grandma's line before her song from "Not him inall." to "Not him too." Has never, ever made sense to me why that wasn't changed. Would be so much funnier.

kport wrote:Do American audiences understand what 'trackies' are?

Only if they're familiar with British slang.

ERinVA wrote:Noah also does the bit of taking hold of his waistband and then deciding not to remove the pants. However, the last time I saw him, it really was so subtle that it was almost unnoticeable. Personally, I think that in order for that line to make sense at all in the context of the current tour, all the Billys need to do it and make it obvious that they are considering and rejecting the idea.

Re tap mics: Yes, until this latest iteration of the tour, the floor has been wired with mics. But for Angry Dance, all Billys have always had mics sewn into the hems of their red track pants. If the floor mics were to be turned on for that number, can you imagine what would happen when the shields slam down? Since Billy is the only one whose footwork needs to be heard, the sewn-in mics make more sense for that number.

The British would find this use of 'pants' rather alarming!

I think they do use it occasionally, but yes, I know the favo(u)red word is "trousers." However, I cannot get my American head around calling track suit pants "trousers." Would a British person actually call those "trousers"?

No, they call them trackies.

(For those who don't know, pants means underwear. It's also an exclamation, sort of like "rubbish" or "bollocks". Perhaps an actual speaker of British English could provide a proper example.)

Americans also use "pants" to mean underwear, of course, but our vocabulary is a bit wider than that, and I believe that the British do understand the word as I have used it.

Shall we move on?

ERinVA wrote:Americans also use "pants" to mean underwear, of course, but our vocabulary is a bit wider than that, and I believe that the British do understand the word as I have used it.

Shall we move on?

No! Not on your nelly!

One quick story. Forgive me! This is true, and illustrates the famous Churchill quote about America and England; 'Two nations divided by a common language'.

Many years ago, as a fledgling housemaster in a famous British prep school, I was visited by my parents on a trip from Boston. I sat my mother next to my Head of House, a charming, very confident twelve year old (who later became one of the biggest stars in the 'Pirates of the Caribbean' films.) I thought: What could go wrong?

Things went well; Jack was extremely polite and entertaining and my mother was recounting the long journey she had had. Suddenly Jack tipped off the back of his bench, landed on the floor, in fits of laughter. My mother was most concerned.

'Jack', I said, nonplussed, 'what is the matter?'

'I....'I'm sorry, Sir. I cannot say!' He was apoplectic with mirth.

At which my mother said, 'He only asked me how I felt after my long flight. All I said was 'I feel fine, but my f**ny is sore!'.

If you do not 'get' this, then you probably think 'pants' means 'trousers'. Those who understand that pants are underpants will get the joke!